To quote the late great Sir Karl Popper:
"When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."
I'm not sure that fits very comfortably with the assertion that:
"But a problem arises when the enthusiasm of the new tempts them into criticizing the old.
I would hope that the new would read more, consider more and write less."
I would hope everyone reads more and considers more. Old and new alike (myself included).
I don't agree with "write less" at all. I trust nobody is printing this thread or so short of bandwidth for a few extra words to be a problem. And if brevity is important (which I think it is for us all, old and new alike, within reason - we should all try to be concise):
I've just gone to the trouble of reading the nearly thousand words you've just written Chris. It is one of the least concise things I've ever read. And the only point I can gather from it that you're trying to make is: this thread is a waste of time ("If no new point is made then it simply becomes another 500 laps around the park")
And I disagree. Do you demand every thread is a ground-breaking piece of new information? Do you regard anything that isn't as a waste of time? What precisely do you think the purpose of this website is?
I started this current discussion by moaning about over-use of Set db = CurrentDb.
Galaxiom kindly pointed out a situation where it was necessary. Through discussion and experimentation, more facts about those 'obscure' cases were shown. (And it was I who used the word obscure because I do consider it obscure. I rarely if ever need to bother with TableDefs. The word obscure is not strictly defined and I'm free to use it as I see fit. To me it is obscure. It's a matter of opinion and therefore no point debating that.)
Definitions are always descriptions. In language and science, nothing is ever truly defined. Every definition is circular. For example:
The definition of space: The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists
The definition of region: A large, usually continuous segment of a surface or space; area
The definition of dimension: A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length
Time, matter/energy, mind/sentience, existence. All impossible to define and the basis of every other definition in the universe. Ergo, nothing is truly defined and never will be. (There is no such thing as épisteme.)
So, I for one don't get hung up about distinctions between definitions and descriptions because there really isn't any: a definition is just a description that appears not to describe anything else (and often its just totally arbitrary) until we find or even imagine something else that fits that description too. Occam's Razor plays a part too when two descriptions are vying for the mantle of 'definition' but it is subservient to empirical observation and it guarantees nothing.
The important thing is that people learn and enjoy. That is what philosophy means (the love of knowledge) and what this website is fundamentally about.
So, I'm sorry you regard it as a waste of time. But I don't, therefore it isn't: It just takes one person to regard it as valuable for it to have value. Nobody's making you read it Chris.